Talk:Long tail/Archives/2018

Sense please?

This from the introduction:

Intuitively, a distribution is (right) long-tailed if, for any fixed amount, 
when a quantity exceeds a high level, it almost certainly exceeds it by at 
least that amount: big quantities are probably even bigger.

That reads like nested nonsense.

• Nothing should be claimed as being intuitive if it is not obvious, and the sentence is anything but that.
• The word "right" in parenthesis presumably refers not to something that is correct but to a righ-handed as opposed to a left handed tail. But if so then this should be stated and shown as different to whatever "intuitive" knowledge may be claimed for a left-handed tail.
• I presume that a "fixed amount" meants a "given amount" but as you understand I am bemused by what is being said
• The graph needs a better explanation and labeled axis for the lay audience a wiki article is intended to address. It is not a power graph in the sense of 'power dressing' or of 'control', but I assume of arithmetic powers and geometric relationships.

From this point on the sentence implodes: "..when a quantity exceeds a high level" (??!!) it almost certainly exceeds it by at least that amount (??!!!)..." Then the finale: big quantities are probably even bigger.

BIG QUANTITIES ARE PROBABLY EVEN BIGGER?!?!?

Even bigger than what? And just how is the word "probably" in that helping anything?

I don't intend to be harsh, only to describe the issues I find (in the opening of the intro). Perhaps to others it is somehow clear. If you are one of these people then please would you edit it accordingly.

I have added a cleanup tag. It's not really that a true 'expert' is needed, just someone who understands this enough to be able to precis it comprehensibly in a wiki introduction.

LookingGlass (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You're experiencing technical concepts as filtered through marketable presentations. Ultra-abbreviated mnemonics such as "big quantities are probably even bigger" allow outgoing guru types to develop an excited following, including some educated people. 84.227.44.248 (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Re-evaluation

My stress level got reduced when I realized that this article is not supposed to be a mathematics or statistics article. 84.227.44.248 (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Long tail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111231215224/http://www.uncdf.org/english/microfinance/ to http://www.uncdf.org/english/microfinance/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

"short neck"

Could the term "short neck" be defined/described on this page? Bjornte (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Mention of successful implementation of Long tail in Bitcoin

Bitcoin uses Long Tail theory in its prevention against double-spend attacks, assuming that a malicious power user can't outweigh the much larger amount of honest users in total hash rate. If a power user did manage to do so, the attacker would be able to perform a double spend attack, in which a product is paid for in block X and sent, after which the attacker reverts the payment by remining all blocks from X upwards, including a new transaction to him- or herself.

Bobwansink (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)